JUDGMENT :

RAJAN ROY, J.

1. A Single Judge of this Court noticed conflicting opinions rendered by different Division Benches on the question of counting of past services rendered by the concerned in the erstwhile Auto Tractors Limited (hereinafter referred as 'ATL') for the purposes of pensionary benefits payable by the State Government consequent to their absorption therein and referred the matter for consideration by a Larger Bench. Accordingly, by order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice this Full Bench was constituted.

2. We considered the questions referred by the learned Single Judge to us and rephrased/reframed the same as under:

“(i) Whether the Division Bench judgments in the case of Shankatha Prasad Mishra (supra); Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava (supra); Mirtuyanjay Prasad Singh (supra); Keshav Ram Pandey (supra) and State of U.P. and Others vs. Amar Pal Singh, Special Appeal (Defective) No. 646 of 2016 decided on 25.10.2016 have correctly held that the benefit of past services rendered by retrenched employees of Auto Tractors Limited, who have been subsequently absorbed in government service, such as the petitioner, would count towards their qualifying service for purposes of calculation of retiral dues payable by the State Government?

(ii) Whether a retrenched employee of Auto Tractors Limited such as the petitioner, who got absorbed in State Government Service subsequently as per the relevant rules known as the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules 1991 are entitled to count their previous services rendered by them under the erstwhile employer i.e. the Auto Tractors Limited, for calculation of qualifying service for purposes of retirement benefits under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 and other ancillary rules and Government Orders in this regard as also Government Orders dated 11.11.1993 and 10.07.1998 as modified vide Government Order dated 28.12.2001?

In addition to the above, we framed the following question:

(iii) Whether Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. versus Ram Shanker Gupta passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 553 of 2015 decided on 27.11.2015 is in conflict with the earlier decisions by Coordinate Benches rendered in the case of Shankatha Prasad Mishra (supra); Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava (supra); Mirtuyanjay Prasad Singh (supra); Keshav Ram Pandey (supra) and State of U.P. and Others vs. Amar Pal Singh, Special Appeal (Defective) No. 646 of 2016 decided on 25.10.2016 or not? If so, which of the two sets of Division Bench judgment lays down the law correctly with regard to question No. 2 as rephrased by us herein above.”

3. We have heard Mr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi along with Mr. Ashutosh Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. I.M. Pandey and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned Advocates Members of the Bar, as also, Mr. Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Alok Kumar Pandey, Mr. Vivek Shukla and Mr. Prafull Yadav, learned counsel for the State, at length.

4. Briefly stated the facts relevant to the questions before us are that the petitioner was appointed in erstwhile ATL on the post of Executive (Personnel & Administration) on 17.10.1984 and worked in the said Company till 20.11.1990 i.e. till its closure. The petitioner was appointed in a Government Cell of ATL as Executive (Personnel & Administration) on 21.11.1990 and continued to work in the said Cell till 06.03.1998. He was paid salary regularly from the State Exchequer. This Cell, it appears, was created for the retrenched employees such as the petitioner till their matters are considered for absorption which was proposed at the relevant time. Ultimately, the State Government in exercise of its powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India made Rules known as Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991 (hereina